Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17] Mr. Bhatt contends that unlike 1947 Act, the Rent Act contains no provision prohibiting the transfer or assignment of tenancy rights in the suit premises. On the contrary, Mr. Bhatt contends that the provisions contained in Section 56 of the Rent Act specifically permit or at least recognise the assignment and the transfer of tenancy rights, as long as such transfer or assignment is in writing and registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The contention of Mr. Bhatt cannot be accepted. In the first place as noted earlier, there is no appreciable difference, at least insofar as material aspects are DSS judgment-cra-225-15 @ cac 349-15 concerned between the definition of the expression 'tenant' as contained in Section 5(11)(c) of the 1947 Act and Section 7(15) of the Rent Act. In the context of such definition, the Apex Court in case of Vasant Pandit (supra) as well as Bhavarlal L. Shah vs. Kanaiyalal N. Intawala6, has held that bequest of tenancy rights is impermissible. Secondly, Section 56 of the Rent Act merely provides that it shall be lawful for the tenant to claim or receive any sum or any consideration, as a condition of the relinquishment of the transfer or assignment of his tenancy of any premises. Under the 1947 Act, there was prohibition to receive any sum or any consideration, which prohibition has now been lifted under the Rent Act. Both 1947 Act as well as the Rent Act, however, provide that sub-letting , assignment, or, transfer of interest, in the suit premises without the consent of the landlord, is a ground available to the landlord to seek recovery of possession. Thus, on the basis of provisions contained in Section 56 of the Rent Act, it cannot be said that there exists no statutory provisions favouring transfer only to family members of the deceased tenant. The decision of the Apex Court, in case of Vasant Pandit (supra), will therefore, hold good even in the context of the provisions contained in Section 7(15) of the Rent Act.